Qamar Bashir
At 8:24 p.m. in Michigan, a dramatic and dangerous shift unfolded in South Asia’s fragile balance. India, in what it called Operation Sindoor, launched 24 long-range missiles targeting eight sites across Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The operation marked a grave escalation, not just militarily but morally and diplomatically.
According to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), all 24 strikes were carried out using missiles—no aircraft entered Pakistani airspace. Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, Director General ISPR, revealed that the attacks struck six civilian areas, killing eight people and injuring 33 others, including women and children.
Among the targets were Bilal Mosque in Muzaffarabad, Abbas Mosque in Kotli, and a
mosque in Muridke. A shell hit Kotli Loharaan near Sialkot, and a public dispensary in
Shakargarh sustained structural damage.
India claims the operation was a response to the April 22 terrorist attack in Pahalgam,
where 25 Indian citizens and one Nepali national were killed. It accused Lashkar-e-Taiba
and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi of masterminding the assault and alleged that the attackers were
trained inside Pakistan. Yet to this day, no proof has been provided to any international
institution. No forensic evidence, no communication intercepts, no cross-border
intelligence sharing—just unilateral claims, swiftly followed by missile strikes.
From an analytical viewpoint, India’s use of long-range precision-guided missiles, rather
than airstrikes, reflects a shift in military doctrine. Likely drawing lessons from the
Balakot operation in 2019—when an Indian pilot was captured and an aircraft
downed—New Delhi opted for remote strikes. Observational data suggests that the
majority of missiles struck their targets, barring two which missed near Kotri and Sialkot.
This suggests India has developed substantial accuracy in its missile capabilities through
satellite-guided systems. That said, this is an analytical conclusion based on
outcomes—not an admission by Pakistani authorities.
Yet even this precision cannot obscure the strategic and moral failure behind India’s
actions.
Interestingly—and disturbingly—none of the alleged militant hideouts or religious
seminaries (madrasas) were targeted. The missiles struck only mosques—recognized as
sacred symbols of worship across the Muslim world. These mosques, by nature of their
open public presence and limited capacity, cannot and do not accommodate covert
militant training operations. Their location in bustling neighborhoods and association
with daily communal prayers makes any such allegation implausible.
This choice of targets raises deep concerns. Regardless of India’s stated objectives, the
outcome is an unmistakable desecration of Islamic religious sanctuaries. Even if
governments of Muslim-majority countries refrain from publicly condemning the act due
to geopolitical considerations, the general public—the masses from Cairo to Jakarta, from
Istanbul to Rabat—will view this as an unforgivable attack on the sanctity of Islam. India
has, knowingly or unknowingly, invited the wrath of a global Muslim conscience, which
may manifest in diplomatic pressure, grassroots protests, and deteriorating people-to-
people perceptions worldwide.
India, as the world’s largest democracy and an aspiring global power, had both the
opportunity and responsibility to demonstrate restraint, logic, and leadership. Positioned
strongly in diplomatic forums, with growing international trade and military stature, India
should have pursued dialogue, reason, and a multilateral investigation. But instead, it
opted for arrogance. It acted impulsively, trigger-happily—driven not by logic but by
revenge.
By doing so, India has not only abandoned its claimed mantle of regional wisdom, but it
has also strategically and diplomatically lowered itself to the level of a struggling
Pakistan. A state that once claimed the high moral ground now finds itself embroiled in
tit-for-tat aggression with a neighbor it routinely derides. In its rush to punish, India has
equated itself with Pakistan—an outcome that shatters the very image it seeks to project
globally.
Pakistan, though cornered politically and economically, is now left with no choice but to
retaliate. But retaliation need not be symmetrical or reckless. In fact, Pakistan now holds
a unique strategic initiative.
Among its potential responses is the targeting of India’s water
infrastructure—specifically, the series of dams constructed on the Jhelum, Chenab, and
Indus rivers in Indian-administered Kashmir. These dams have long been used by India
as political leverage, threatening to reduce or block Pakistan’s water supply. Their
destruction would not only neutralize India’s coercive potential, but also cripple decades
of infrastructure planning. These towering structures, built over many years, could be
destroyed in minutes—at a cost India would struggle to recover from for at least another
decade. This would be a response that avoids civilian casualties while delivering
maximum strategic effect.
Moreover, Pakistan has also long accused India of sponsoring terrorism within its
borders—funding separatist militants in Balochistan and aiding TTP factions from
Afghan soil. If Pakistan now chooses to strike what it considers Indian-supported militant
facilities, it would be simply adopting the very doctrine India used to justify its initial
assault.
More broadly, this episode marks the arrival of a new kind of conflict. Gone are the days
of cross-border skirmishes and air force dogfights. What we now see is unmanned
warfare—missiles, drones, AI-guided weapons, and remote targeting. Both India and
Pakistan are equipped with these capabilities. And both are capable of devastating strikes
that can paralyze strategic assets within minutes—without a single soldier crossing a
border.
International reactions to the crisis are measured but clearly concerned. U.S. Secretary of
State Marco Rubio posted on X that he is monitoring the situation closely after being
briefed by Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval. President Donald Trump,
speaking at the White House, described the attack as “a shame,” adding, “I just hope it
ends very quickly.” Rubio echoed Trump’s sentiment and pledged to remain in contact
with both Indian and Pakistani leadership in hopes of securing a peaceful outcome.
However, events on the ground suggest escalation. Indian airlines including Air India,
IndiGo, and SpiceJet have cancelled or diverted flights to Kashmir and cities near the
border, including Amritsar, Jammu, Srinagar, Leh, and Rajkot. Two international flights
were rerouted to Delhi. These moves, while subtle, are indicative of India bracing for an
anticipated Pakistani strike.
India, for now, waits. Not in triumph, but in growing tension.
Pakistan has made it unequivocally clear: a response will come “at a time and place of
our choosing.” Whether it targets military facilities, economic infrastructure, or strategic
dams, the choice lies with Islamabad—and so does the initiative. The coming days will
define whether the region sinks into prolonged hostility or retreats into a renewed balance
of deterrence.
India, by acting rashly and without justification, has not only triggered a strategic
crisis—it has humbled itself before the world. By targeting mosques, by avoiding
evidence, and by discarding diplomacy, it has chosen war over wisdom.
And now, for all its missiles, all its claims, all its declarations—India waits.
-Writer is Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)
Former Press Minister at Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former MD, SRBC
Macomb, Detroit, Michigan, USA
